What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Price Is No Longer an Obstacle to Clean Power

OP
abu afak

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
5,932
Reaction score
2,067
Points
315

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​

October 2020

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA


""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
133,004
Reaction score
52,553
Points
2,290
Cost has always been the key, and the only excuse the nutters have. It was inevitable that costs would come down.

Exciting news. Hopefully this country really HAS hit rock bottom and we're about to reverse course.

Yeah because businesses HATE delivering quality for less cost.

You're as economically illiterate as Krugman
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,732
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Cost has always been the key, and the only excuse the nutters have. It was inevitable that costs would come down.

Exciting news. Hopefully this country really HAS hit rock bottom and we're about to reverse course.

Not even the BEST argument against wind and solar. Price is only an issue because the stuff has been heavily subsidized for decades and THAT doesn't show in the "costs". There's also the cost to make wind and solar even MARGINALLY reliable for which the article in the OPost completely bypasses.

When you BUY wind and solar -- you're paying for 200% capacity above the placarded generation maximum that the grid will NEVER SEE. Solar is limited by latitude, season, time of day, weather. Wind is limited by completely flaky reliability in terms of LEVEL of generation. For BOTH -- the ACTUAL generation is about 33% of the amount YOU BOUGHT. And wind is so entirely flaky that you cannot even SCHEDULE deliveries 12 hours from now.

When reasonable people with some investment in understanding of why solar and wind are ALTERNATIVES TO NOTHING -- and are only "supplements" -- hear that all this is gonna be "fixed" by massive fielding of battery back-up -- that's cringe-worthy. Because lithium batteries are NOT a power source. THey are a power DRAIN on the grid. And to CHARGE them would require likely TWICE as much wind and/or solar to charge them AND simultaneous produce at their best capacity for the week. Not to mention that storage of more than couple hours WOULD RAPE THE PLANET of the "rare earths" and components that need to be found and mined.

Large battery storage at those high charge/discharge rates LIMIT the lifetime of MEGATONS of batteries to 12 or 14 years. So the TOXIC WASTE stream from THIS bad idea, in conjunction with the OTHER BAD idea of moving the transport sector to the grid --- would BE an environmental nightmare.

What we HAVE NOW is an energy system designed by POLITICAL leadership who wont relent to valid arguments on WHY wind and solar are NOT replacements for what we have. Or that we COULD achieve "zero emissions" by field 3rd/4th smaller scale nuclear with a HELL less of environmental impact.

TRUE environmentalists take this SAME STAND. The "godfather" of GW, James Hansen, has repeatedly joined with famous environmentalist to make these points that I just made. In HIS words:

If you believe that wind and solar are the answer to Global Warming -- you probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.


Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Editor's note: Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley released an open letter Sunday calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.

To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.


We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.


ALSO ---



Nuclear power, particularly next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), is uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous. Over the past 50 years, nuclear power stations – by offsetting fossil fuel combustion – have avoided the emission of an estimated 60bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy can power whole civilisations, and produce waste streams that are trivial compared to the waste produced by fossil fuel combustion. There are technical means to dispose of this small amount of waste safely. However, nuclear does pose unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be addressed with strong and binding international standards and safeguards. Most importantly for climate, nuclear produces no CO2 during power generation.

To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions – not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power. Some have argued that it is feasible to meet all of our energy needs with renewables. The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions, and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability. Large amounts of nuclear power would make it much easier for solar and wind to close the energy gap.


The climate issue is too important for us to delude ourselves with wishful thinking. Throwing tools such as nuclear out of the box constrains humanity’s options and makes climate mitigation more likely to fail. We urge an all-of-the-above approach that includes increased investment in renewables combined with an accelerated deployment of new nuclear reactors.
 
Last edited:

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,732
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
The Heritage Foundation
Green Energy Mandates Could Double Your Electric Bills
green energy rising rates from www.heritage.org
Oct 30, 2018 · States with high renewable energy standards have electric power rates that are about 50 percent ... compared with current electricity costs, at the proposed rate increase in Arizona.

Look at Europe. Political morons shuttering their nuclear plants and OVER build out of wind and solar have TRIPLED or QUADRUPLED the cost. And every year they are in greater danger of failing to produce on the grid. UK was importing nuclear power from France until recently. The French had to shut-down almost 1/2 of their nuclear for deferred maintenance. And the UK deciding to COMMISSION new plants.

This has been VERY expensive for them and with each new summer/winter peak loads, the PEOPLE there are actually in mortal danger.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
10,539
Reaction score
3,118
Points
140
Not even the BEST argument against wind and solar. Price is only an issue because the stuff has been heavily subsidized for decades and THAT doesn't show in the "costs". There's also the cost to make wind and solar even MARGINALLY reliable for which the article in the OPost completely bypasses.

When you BUY wind and solar -- you're paying for 200% capacity above the placarded generation maximum that the grid will NEVER SEE. Solar is limited by latitude, season, time of day, weather. Wind is limited by completely flaky reliability in terms of LEVEL of generation. For BOTH -- the ACTUAL generation is about 33% of the amount YOU BOUGHT. And wind is so entirely flaky that you cannot even SCHEDULE deliveries 12 hours from now.

When reasonable people with some investment in understanding of why solar and wind are ALTERNATIVES TO NOTHING -- and are only "supplements" -- hear that all this is gonna be "fixed" by massive fielding of battery back-up -- that's cringe-worthy. Because lithium batteries are NOT a power source. THey are a power DRAIN on the grid. And to CHARGE them would require likely TWICE as much wind and/or solar to charge them AND simultaneous produce at their best capacity for the week. Not to mention that storage of more than couple hours WOULD RAPE THE PLANET of the "rare earths" and components that need to be found and mined.

Large battery storage at those high charge/discharge rates LIMIT the lifetime of MEGATONS of batteries to 12 or 14 years. So the TOXIC WASTE stream from THIS bad idea, in conjunction with the OTHER BAD idea of moving the transport sector to the grid --- would BE an environmental nightmare.

What we HAVE NOW is an energy system designed by POLITICAL leadership who wont relent to valid arguments on WHY wind and solar are NOT replacements for what we have. Or that we COULD achieve "zero emissions" by field 3rd/4th smaller scale nuclear with a HELL less of environmental impact.

TRUE environmentalists take this SAME STAND. The "godfather" of GW, James Hansen, has repeatedly joined with famous environmentalist to make these points that I just made. In HIS words:




Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute

Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research

Editor's note: Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley released an open letter Sunday calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.

To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.


We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.


ALSO ---



Nuclear power, particularly next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), is uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous. Over the past 50 years, nuclear power stations – by offsetting fossil fuel combustion – have avoided the emission of an estimated 60bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy can power whole civilisations, and produce waste streams that are trivial compared to the waste produced by fossil fuel combustion. There are technical means to dispose of this small amount of waste safely. However, nuclear does pose unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be addressed with strong and binding international standards and safeguards. Most importantly for climate, nuclear produces no CO2 during power generation.

To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions – not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power. Some have argued that it is feasible to meet all of our energy needs with renewables. The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions, and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability. Large amounts of nuclear power would make it much easier for solar and wind to close the energy gap.


The climate issue is too important for us to delude ourselves with wishful thinking. Throwing tools such as nuclear out of the box constrains humanity’s options and makes climate mitigation more likely to fail. We urge an all-of-the-above approach that includes increased investment in renewables combined with an accelerated deployment of new nuclear reactors.
So, just to be clear, you're saying that the IEA is full of beans? Because you know more about what they're talking about than they do?
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,732
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
So, just to be clear, you're saying that the IEA is full of beans? Because you know more about what they're talking about than they do?

What and when did the IEA say that contradicts anything I just wrote? And INTERNATIONALLY -- both Euro and other countries farther down this "alternative" rabbit hole are planning nuclear projects.

That's not the only guidance on REAL grid generation I've run across. You COULD use wind/solar OFFGRID and standalone to PRODUCE hydrogen fuel which COULD power the transport sector using fuel cell tech.

OR -- you could simply require state by state that the Utility Commissions deciding and approving new generation projects MUST guarantee a minimum output from whatever energy mix they need to FIELD RELIABLE power. So if you want to use primarily wind or solar -- you would need to CHOOSE and INTEGRATE some other power source to guarantee the CONTINUOUS minimum output from that proposed facility.
 

themirrorthief

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
3,071
Points
1,938

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
10,539
Reaction score
3,118
Points
140
What and when did the IEA say that contradicts anything I just wrote? And INTERNATIONALLY -- both Euro and other countries farther down this "alternative" rabbit hole are planning nuclear projects.

That's not the only guidance on REAL grid generation I've run across. You COULD use wind/solar OFFGRID and standalone to PRODUCE hydrogen fuel which COULD power the transport sector using fuel cell tech.

OR -- you could simply require state by state that the Utility Commissions deciding and approving new generation projects MUST guarantee a minimum output from whatever energy mix they need to FIELD RELIABLE power. So if you want to use primarily wind or solar -- you would need to CHOOSE and INTEGRATE some other power source to guarantee the CONTINUOUS minimum output from that proposed facility.
I gather that's a "No" then. You don't think the IEA is full of beans. You weren't attempting to "contradict":
The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.
Still no clarity on the other question. I'll just insert that backup batteries of many sorts can and are already being used to store electric power for grid stability, plus widespread generating towns and farms experiencing various light and wind conditions while all hooked to the grid obviously average out to some baseload power production even in the middle of the night. The key factor is the pollution free, free fuel. Emphasis on the FREE! Something you conveniently gloss over, time and again.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
84,483
Reaction score
25,791
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history”

How much more expensive are the ones actually in use?
Germany level expensive?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
84,483
Reaction score
25,791
Points
2,250
Location
Chicago
I gather that's a "No" then. You don't think the IEA is full of beans. Still no clarity on the other question. I'll just insert that backup batteries of many sorts can and are already being used to store electric power for grid stability, plus widespread generating towns and farms experiencing various light and wind conditions while all hooked to the grid obviously average out to some baseload power production even in the middle of the night. The key factor is the pollution free, free fuel. Emphasis on the FREE! Something you conveniently gloss over, time and again.

I'll just insert that backup batteries of many sorts can and are already being used to store electric power for grid stability, plus widespread generating towns and farms experiencing various light and wind conditions while all hooked to the grid obviously average out to some baseload power production even in the middle of the night.

That sounds great!

How large a battery backup would be needed to keep Chicago warm for a snowy two weeks in February?

The key factor is the pollution free, free fuel.

Free fuel is the KEY factor?
Are you sure? Is that why Germany has the highest electricity rates in the world?
Too much free fuel?
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,732
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,732
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I gather that's a "No" then. You don't think the IEA is full of beans. Still no clarity on the other question.

You brought it up. NO ONE in this thread knows what you THINK the IEA implied.

I'll just insert that backup batteries of many sorts can and are already being used to store electric power for grid stability, plus widespread generating towns and farms experiencing various light and wind conditions while all hooked to the grid obviously average out to some baseload power production even in the middle of the night.

THere are NO humongous battery back-ups being planned or even imagined that store more 200MegaWatts for 4 hours. Why? Because Cali (of course it's Cali) is planning a battery station of that dimension. Kinda of a fraud tho -- because it's NOT integrated INTO a specific wind or solar farm -- but will CHARGE ITSELF on ANYTHING that's available over the grid.

I wrote an article on this. Calculated that the battery mass was equivalent to 17,000 medium range Teslas. And it will have to be replaced every 12 to 14 years. AND they chose to build this on a very environmentally sensitive area called the Elkhorn Slough. FOR FOUR HOURS powering just about 180,000 homes (without an electric car in the garage) or about 1000 grocery stores and hospitals.

Another fun fact is to store 1 HOUR of Americas energy production would require the super-sized, super-efficient Tesla battery plant to run for something like 250 years to crank out the batteries..

The morons DESIGNING this "battery-centric" American energy system are gonna get us all killed.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,732
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
BTW -- in the course of writing that article about the battery Armageddon the politicos are designing -- I discovered that the Cali State legislature gave their SUPER neat battery storage facility COVER by allowing them NOT TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE COST or contract information until YEARS after the facility opens.

If "renewables" are gonna save us and SOME folks think "they are so cheap -- that NOBODY can whine" -- WHY is the leading "renewable" state HIDING COSTS??????
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,732
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn

Sure. There's a bunch of them. ALL much smaller that Elkhorn Slough facility in Cali.

  • The Iowa Utilities Board on Tuesday approved plans by NextEra Energy to build 200 MW of solar and a 75-MW/300-MWh battery storage facility through two subsidiaries at the site of its shuttered Duane Arnold nuclear plant.
Compare the sizes with the numbers I gave for the Cali plant.

75MW peak charge/discharge at 300MW-hrs.

That's 4 hours also, but only good for about 60,000 homes (without EVehicles) or about 5 sq blocks of any commerce, hospital or business in the nearest city. And it's IOWA. So it's inevitably a phony fix for the wind generation that they are over-building. Because 4 hours is NOT NEAR enough when wind takes 3 days in a row generating next to nothing,.

At a MINIMUM for good design practice -- EVERY solar field or wind farm should be REQUIRED TO ADD a minimum of 1 hour back-up to enable the grid controllers to switch and mix generators when wind goes away or the sun dont hit the magic panels. Otherwise the grid can easily become unstable to demand. And you cant SWITCH a nuclear or fossil plant or even a dam ON/OFF instantaneously.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,732
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA​

October 2020

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA


""The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use over the next two decades....."

`

DUDE!!! It may be cheapest during 7 to 9 hours of full solar insolation, but it aint gonna produce a whit at night or when the sun is low on the horizon or in wintry/rainy areas or high latitudes.

Doesn't include the cost of the OTHER GENERATOR that has to fill those gaps. OR the price of the land you sacrifice to install it on. Or all the VERY COSTLY and environmentally dangerous brain farts about batteries backing up solar.

Solar is a PEAKING generator to reduce the peak demand that USUALLY occurs about mid-day. Not an "alternative". And if the POLITICAL mental midgets designing this hell shift the entire TRANSPORT FLEET to the grid by MANDATES -- there WONT BE A predictable daily peak demand unless you outlaw charging vehicles when the solar fields are not pumping.
.
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
24,434
Reaction score
9,553
Points
490
Cost has always been the key, and the only excuse the nutters have. It was inevitable that costs would come down.

Exciting news. Hopefully this country really HAS hit rock bottom and we're about to reverse course.
Actually reliability is the issue.

If you want to get 100% fossil fuel free electricity you cannot rely on intermittent power sources.

We need reliable baseline power 24/7/365 and the only way to get that emission free power is to go nuclear.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
103,429
Reaction score
46,605
Points
2,320
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
Yeah because businesses HATE delivering quality for less cost.

You're as economically illiterate as Krugman
Ah, okay. Tell me: What is your background, education, training and hands-on experience in economics and markets? Let's compare.

Then, what is my opinion on the way the Dems have handled the energy issue? You must know, right?

Go ahead, lay it on me, Einstein.

:popcorn:
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
133,004
Reaction score
52,553
Points
2,290
Ah, okay. Tell me: What is your background, education, training and hands-on experience in economics and markets? Let's compare.

Then, what is my opinion on the way the Dems have handled the energy issue? You must know, right?

Go ahead, lay it on me, Einstein.

:popcorn:
There's no point to that! You started off wrong in the trillions column.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top